Home
/

Top Stories
/
Supreme Court Weekly Round-up:...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: March 17, 2025 To March 24, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

29 March 2025 2:34 PM

Reports/Judgments

Preventive Detention Order To Be Quashed When Passed Without Considering Bail Granted By Magistrate: Supreme Court

Case Details: Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 298

The Supreme Court set aside a preventive detention order against an alleged key member of a syndicate that smuggled foreign gold into India observing that the detaining authority failed to consider the conditions imposed by the jurisdictional Magistrate when granting him bail in case arising from the same allegations.

A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran noted that while the conditions imposed by the Magistrate were outlined in the detention order, the detaining authority did not discuss whether these conditions were sufficient to restrain the detenu from indulging in further smuggling activities. The court granted relief on this ground even though the appellant-detenu's wife, did not raise this contention.

When Conviction Is Under Both POCSO Act & IPC, Offender Liable To Be Sentenced Under Provision Prescribing Higher Punishment: Supreme Court

Case Details: Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of U.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 299

The Supreme Court clarified that when a person is convicted for an offence under both the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”) and the rape provisions of the IPC, Section 42 of the POCSO Act mandates the imposition of the higher degree of punishment prescribed either under the POCSO Act or Indian Penal Code (“IPC”).

The court further stated that no plea for a lesser punishment under the POCSO Act can be entertained if the IPC prescribes a higher punishment for certain offences by arguing that Section 42A, as a special law, overrides the IPC, which is considered a general law.

In India, Far More Demand For Government Jobs Than Available Posts; Absolute Scruplousness Necessary In Selection Process: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 300

"In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available," observed the Supreme Court while setting aside the bail granted to the accused in case over the use of a "dummy candidate" in a Civil Engineer Competitive Examination.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanudding Amanullah allowed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the High Court's order for grant of bail to accused Indraj Singh and Salman Khan.

While setting aside the High Court's bail, the Supreme Court observed:

“In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, each job which has a clearly delineated entry process - with prescribed examination and/or interview process, has only to be filled in accordance thereof. Absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instills and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions, are the ones who have deservedly been installed to such positions.”

Sale Under Power Of Attorney Unaffected By Subsequent Cancellation Of PoA: Supreme Court

Case Details: V Ravikumar v. S Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 301

The Supreme Court has observed that sale transactions carried out on the basis of a valid Power of Attorney (PoA) cannot be sought to be set aside later on the ground that the PoA was cancelled subsequently.

Holding so, the Court affirmed an order of the Trial Court rejecting a plaint, which sought to annul certain past sale transactions on the basis of the subsequent cancellation of the PoA.

The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed:

"We are clear in our minds that the cancellation does not affect the prior conveyances made which are clearly on the strength of the power conferred on the appellant. There is no contention raised as to the power of attorney having not conferred the power to enter into conveyances or that such power of attorney was executed by reason of a fraud or coercion employed on the executant. The power holder having exercised the authority conferred; to convey the properties in the name of the purchasers, the cancellation of the power of attorney will have no effect on the conveyances carried out under the valid power conferred. Nor would it confer the person who executed the power of attorney any cause of action, by virtue of a cancellation of the power conferred by a subsequent document, to challenge the valid exercise of the power when it existed."

Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Notify Sanctioned Posts Of Teachers For Children With Special Needs Before March 28

Case Details: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132/2016

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 302

The Supreme Court (March 7) directed all the States and Union Territories to notify the sanctioned posts of teachers for special children and immediately begin the selection procedure of the same. It added that those teachers working on an ad-hoc basis in different states be regularised by a scrutiny committee on the merits of each candidate.

The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a Public Interest Litigation which highlighted the lack of special educators for teaching students with special needs.

The Court noted that despite several orders passed directing compliance with the October 2021 judgment in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey vs Union of India, none of the states have 'made any appointments on the sanctioned posts for Special Teachers.'

'Shocking': Supreme Court Slams J&K Admin For 16 Years' Refusal To Comply With HC Order On Regularisation Of Daily Wager

Case Details: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors v. Abdul Rehman Khanday & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 303

The Supreme Court of India made a scathing observation regarding the 16-year long delay by the UT of J&K in complying with the High Court's order, which directed the government to consider the case of the respondent daily wagers for regularization as per specific Government Order SRO 64 of 1994.

IN 2007, J&K High Court had passed the directions to appellants to consider the case of the respondent at par with other daily wage workers, who had received the benefits of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 back in 2006.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed that, “What concerns us is not the delay of decades alone, but also the incontrovertible fact that the poor respondents, being daily wage workers, have been repeatedly harassed by the petitioners by passing cryptic orders, thereby overlooking the true import and spirit of the order of the learned Single Judge.”

The court further stated, “We consider the instant case fit for imposing exemplary costs on the delinquent officers, besides also recommending strong disciplinary actions against them.”

However, the court refrained from passing any such direction, considering the fact that the contempt proceedings were still pending before the Single Judge of the J&K High Court.

Supreme Court Discharges Employers In Culpable Homicide Case Over Electrocution Death Of Workers Engaged For Decoration

Case Details: Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 304

The Supreme Court discharged two persons accused of not providing safety equipment (e.g., helmets, safety belts, rubber shoes) to their employees, leading to their deaths due to electrocution while working on a signboard by using an iron ladder.

The Trial Court and High Court rejected the appellants' (employers) discharge application, holding that there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

Setting aside the impugned decisions, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that it was incumbent upon the courts below to have a prima facie view while deciding an application for discharge on whether the offence alleged against the applicant was made out or not. The Court held that the appellants lacked requisite knowledge or intention to cause death.

Supreme Court Exempts Wife From Paying Stamp Duty For Flat Acquired As Part Of Compromise In Divorce Case

Case Details: Arun Rameshchand Arya v. Parul Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 305

The Supreme Court exempted a wife, who received a flat as part of a compromise with her husband in a matrimonial dispute, from the payment of stamp duty under the Registration Act, 1908 (“Act”).

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the husband and wife, during the pendency of the petition filed by the husband seeking transfer of the divorce case filed by the wife, agreed to mutually dissolve their marriage in the mediation proceedings.

The Court, relying on the recent case of Mukesh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2024) said that since the flat was the subject matter of the compromise and formed part of the proceedings before the Court, the transfer would be exempt from stamp duty under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act.

“Manifestly, the flat-in-question is the subject matter of the compromise and as a consequence, it forms part of the proceedings before this Court. Hence, the exclusion provided by Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 will apply and the registration of the flat-in-question in the exclusive name of the respondent-wife would be exempted from the payment of stamp duty.”, the court observed.

'Agreement To Lease Didn't Create Leasehold Rights Without Execution': Supreme Court In Delhi Development Authority's Appeal

Case Details: Delhi Development Authority v. S.G.G. Towers (P) Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 306

While interpreting the clauses in an agreement to lease entered into between the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and a party, the Supreme Court noted that the agreement to lease did not create leasehold rights unless the lease deed was executed and registered.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was deciding Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) appeal against the High Court's ruling, which had affirmed the auction sale of the suit property.

When Selection Is Based Entirely On Interview Marks, It's Reasonable To Presume Existence Of Arbitrariness & Favouritism: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 307

The Supreme Court upheld the 2016 decision of the then BJP government of Assam to cancel a select list for the recruitment process of 104 Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) notified in 2014 by the then Indian National Congress government.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan found that the cancellation was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate, given the anomalies in the recruitment process identified by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, including skewed district representation and reservation policy violations.

The Court further highlighted that the recruitment was based on interviews without any written exam and was not governed by any Rules.

“Last but not the least, having regard to present times when corruption has been held to be a walk of life by certain responsible citizens of the country, it would have been desirable if the process of recruitment of 104 Constables were conducted after framing of recruitment rules and also prescribing a written examination to keep the process absolutely above board”, the Court observed.

The Court observed –

“the Government itself felt that the selection being entirely based on interview, the same admitted an element of arbitrariness and that the assessment of candidates being based merely on the basis of marks at the interview, was reasonable for drawing a presumption of being misused for favouritism and could well be regarded as suffering from the vice of arbitrariness. In such circumstances, it is indeed difficult, if not impossible, for a court to law to substitute its decision for the one taken by the Government reasoning that the selection has not been challenged by any unsuccessful candidate.”

Maharashtra Slum Act | 'Censused Slums' Also 'Slums', No Separate Notification Needed For Redevelopment: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali & Ors. v. Tahsildar-I, Special Cell & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 308

The Supreme Court observed that once a slum area is declared as 'censused slum' i.e., the slums located on land belonging to government or municipal undertaking, than such slums are automatically eligible for redevelopment under the Slum Act without the need for a separate notification under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“Slum Act”).

“if a slum is a 'censused slum' then it is already included in the definition of slums for the purpose of redevelopment under Regulation 33(10) of DCR and no separate notification is required under the Slum Act. In other words, a censused slum is also a slum as per Regulation 33(10) DCR and a separate notification under section 4 of the Slum Act is not required.”, the court observed.

Motor Accident Claims | 'Legal Representative' Is One Who Suffers Loss; Need Not Be Spouse, Child Or Parent Of Deceased: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sadhana Tomar & Ors. v. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 309

The Supreme Court ruled that the term 'legal representative' under the Motor Vehicle Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased's income

The Court said that if the claimants were dependent on the deceased's income, then they shall be granted compensation. A "legal representative" is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child, the Court held, referring to precedents.

Prevention Of Corruption Act | 'Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe Not Proved In Trap Case': Supreme Court Acquits Govt Employees

Case Details: Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 310

The Supreme Court acquitted two government employees accused of demanding and accepting bribe after noting that the prosecution failed to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe.

The Court reiterated that a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) would not arise against the accused unless the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe is established by the prosecution.

Further, the Court stressed the importance of the independent witnesses' testimony in trap cases to ensure the credibility of the evidence i.e., if independent witnesses turn hostile or contradict the prosecution's case, it raises reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt.

PMLA | Money Laundering Offence Continues So Long As Proceeds Of Crime Are Concealed, Used Or Projected As Untainted: Supreme Court

Case Details: Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Observing that the offence of money laundering is a continuing offence and not a one-time occurrence, the Supreme Court (March 17) refused to discharge Pradeep Sharma, a former Gujarat IAS officer in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

He was accused of generating proceeds of crime during his tenure as Collector by receiving bribes.

He sought discharge, arguing that the alleged criminal activity leading to the generation of proceeds of crime occurred before the PMLA came into effect. Opposing the plea, the Enforcement Directorate argued that the criminal activity of money laundering was a continuing offence.

"It is well established that offences under the PMLA are of a continuing nature, and the act of money laundering does not conclude with a single instance but extends so long as the proceeds of crime are concealed, used, or projected as untainted property. The legislative intent behind the PMLA is to combat the menace of money laundering, which by its very nature involves transactions spanning over time.", the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed.

Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Bar On Auroville Township Project, Says Development Equally Important As Environment Protection

Case Details: Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersap Mody and Ors | CA 5781-5782/2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 312

The Supreme Court (March 17) set aside the order of the National Green Tribunal which barred the Auroville Foundation from developmental activities in their township in Puducherry.

A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B Varale allowed the appeal filed by Auroville Foundation against the order passed by the NGT Southern Zone Bench in April 2022, which barred the Foundation from its developmental activities till they obtained an Environmental Clearance.

Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Trivedi said that the right to development was equally important as the right to clean environment.

"Though it is true that precautionary principle and polluter pays principle are part of the environmental law of the country, it is equally true that while the right to clean environment is a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the right to development equally claims priority under the fundamental rights, particularly under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, there is a need for sustainable development striking a golden balance between the right to development and the right to clean environment," Justice Trivedi read out the judgment.

Auroville Residents Have No Right To Be Part Of Council/Committee Formed By Foundation's Governing Body: Supreme Court

Case Details: Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey | Diary No. - 13723/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 313

The Supreme Court (March 17) held that the Residents' Assembly or any individual resident of the Auroville Foundation cannot claim any right to be a part of a Committee or Council constituted by the Governing Board of the Foundation.

A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasana B Varale set aside the Madras High Court's order which quashed the standing order of 1st June 2022 constituting the Auroville Town Development Council (ATDC). The High Court had quashed the ATDC constitution, inter alia, on the ground that it was formed without the aid and advice of the Residents' Assembly.

Allowing the Auroville Foundation's appeal against the High Court's order, the Supreme Court observed that as per the Auroville Foundation Act or the Rules made thereunder, no legal or statutory right conferred upon the Residents' Assembly or upon any individual resident to be part of the Committee or the Council constituted by the Governing Council.

The Supreme Court held that the functions of the Residents' Assembly are confined only to advising the Governing Board in respect of the activities relating to residents of Auroville and to make recommendations as specified in Section 19 of the AF Act and not any further.

The Court observed that the High Court "thoroughly misdirected itself in misinterpreting the provisions of the AF Act and in setting aside the impugned notification containing Standing Order dated 01.06.2022."

Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Trivedi said, "Some disgruntled and discontented residents kept on filing the petitions one after the other, dragging the Foundation into unnecessary litigations. The writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court was one of such ill-motivated petitions filed by her to abuse the process of law to hamper the development of Auroville and to cause obstructions to the smooth functioning of the Governing Board of the Foundation."

While allowing the appeal, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondent Natasha Storey which is to be deposited before the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

No S.138 NI Act Case Against Ex-Director Of Company When Cause Of Action Arose After IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vishnoo Mittal v. M/S Shakti Trading Company

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 314

The Supreme Court held that if the cause of action for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) has arisen after the declaration of moratorium with respect to the company as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), then the proceedings under S.138 NI Act cannot be continued against the ex-director of the company.

The Court reasoned that upon imposition of the moratorium, the board of directors' powers are suspended, and management of the corporate debtor is taken over by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP). As a result, directors cannot be held liable for actions they are no longer authorized to take.

“When the notice was issued to the appellant (director), he was not in charge of the corporate debtor as he was suspended from his position as the director of the corporate debtor as soon as IRP was appointed on 25.07.2018. Therefore, the powers vested with the board of directors were to be exercised by the IRP in accordance with the provisions of IBC. All the bank accounts of the corporate debtor were operating under the instructions of the IRP, hence, it was not possible for the appellant to repay the amount in light of section 17 of the IBC.”, the Court observed.

The Court explained that the cause of action for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) arises not on the dishonour of the cheque but when the amount remains unpaid after the expiry of fifteen days following the receipt of the demand notice.

'Lalita Kumari' Judgment Doesn't Create Absolute Rule That Preliminary Enquiry Is Necessary In Every Case Before FIR: Supreme Court

Case Details: Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 315

The Supreme Court observed in a recent judgment that the landmark decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors(2014) "does not create an absolute rule that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted in every case before the registration of an FIR."

The Court added that the Lalita Kumari decision reaffirmed "the settled principle that the police authorities are obligated to register an FIR when the information received prima facie discloses a cognizable offence."

"The scope of a preliminary inquiry, as clarified in the said judgment, is limited to situations where the information received does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requires verification. However, in cases where the information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, the police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR," the Court added.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale made these observations while rejecting the bail plea of former Gujarat IAS officer Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma in connection to a 2023 illegal land allotment case lodged at Bhuj in Kutch.

Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes | Default Retiral Benefit Scheme Is Pension & Gratuity Unless Employee Specifically Opts For Contributory Provident Fund: Supreme Court

Case Details: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) Mukesh Prasad Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University (Now Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University) & Ors.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a retired University professor. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that under the Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976, the default retiral benefit scheme is General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity, unless an employee specifically opts for the Contributory Provident Fund scheme. The Court set aside the Patna High Court's judgment and directed the University to provide the appellant with pension benefits within four months.

International Commercial Arbitration | How To Determine Law Governing Arbitration Agreement? Supreme Court Discusses Tests

Case Details: Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 317

In a significant judgment relating to International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of an express law governing the arbitration agreement, the applicable law should be determined based on the parties' intentions, with a strong presumption in favor of the law governing the main contract (lex contractus).

The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the case where the plea was made for an appointment of an arbitrator in an International Commercial Arbitration where the Petitioner was a foreign-Columbia-based entity, whereas the Respondent was an Indian-Gujarat based entity.

Motor Accident Claims | Supreme Court Asks High Courts/Tribunals To Direct Transfer Of Compensation To Claimants' Bank Accounts

Case Details: Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 318

The Supreme Court (March 18) emphasized the need for the direct transfer of motor accident claim compensation to claimants' bank accounts to minimize delays and ensure timely payments.

“The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.”, the Court observed.

In this regard, the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal streamlined the process for the transfer of the claim amount to the claimant's bank account. It stated that the claimants should provide bank account details at the initial stage of the claim process so that tribunals can issue directions for direct transfers after the passing of awards. Further, for minors or cases requiring fixed deposits, the Court said that banks should ensure compliance and report to the Tribunal.

Supreme Court Criticises HC For Refusing BAMS Degree To Student After Allowing Him To Complete Course Through Interim Orders

Case Details: Zaid Sheikh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 319

The Supreme Court (March 18) provided relief to a BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) student to whom degree was denied on the ground that he did not meet the eligibility criteria of having studied English in 10+2 class at the time of the admission to the Course.

The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice A.G. Masih ordered the issuance of the BAMS course degree to the student, noting that the initial deficiency of failing to study English as a subject in his higher secondary examination at the time of admission was later rectified when he successfully cleared the English test subsequently, as required by the college.

Appearance Of Only Advocates Physically Present & Arguing In Court & One Assisting Counsel Will Be Recorded: Supreme Court

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., MA 3-4/2025 in Crl.A. No. 3883-3884/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 320

The Supreme Court passed orders (March 19) regarding the recording of advocates' appearances in cases.

The Court stated that the appearances of only Senior Advocates or Advocate-on-Record or Advcoate, who are physically present and arguing in the Court at the time of hearing of the matter and one Advocate/Advocate-on-Record each for assistance in Court to such arguing Sr Advocate, Advocate-on-Record or Advocate, as the case may be, will be recorded in the record of proceedings. The Court noted that the Appearance Slip as per Form 30 prescribed by the SC Rules only allowed the recording of these appearances.

"Therefore, along with the arguing Senior Advocate or AOR or Advocate appearing for a party, further additional appearance of only one Advocate or AOR as the case may be, who is assisting in the matter, could be recorded," the Court observed.

The Supreme Court held that no advocate, other than the Advocate-on-Record for a party, can appear, plead and address the Court in a matter unless he is instructed by the AOR or permitted by the Court.

The Supreme Court observed that an advocate's right to appear in Court is coupled with the duty to be present in the Court at the time of hearing.

The Court also reiterated that Advocates-on-Record (AORs) should not be mere “name lenders” and should effectively participate in the proceedings.

If Parties Attempt To Obtain Order By Trick, Courts Can Impose Costs For Vexatious Litigation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Leelawati (Dead) Thr. Lrs. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 321

The Supreme Court criticized a litigant for filing multiple petitions before the High Court while concealing the dismissal of an earlier petition. Dismissing the appeal, the Court justified the imposition of costs, and increased the penalty to ₹50,000, emphasizing that such measures are essential to deter frivolous and vexatious litigation.

If the parties misuse the process and attempt to obtain an order by "trick and strategem", the Courts would be justified in imposing the costs for igniting such vexatious litigation, the Court observed.

The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar heard the case where the Appellant had preferred an appeal against the Allahabad High Court's decision dismissing a petition filed by him with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- for filing a vexatious petition.

HC Bench Cannot Hear Case Without Chief Justice's Authorisation Merely Based On Consent Of Parties: Supreme Court

Case Details: Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited v. Grse Limited Workmens Union & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 322

The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment, emphasizing that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and that any bench hearing a case without the Chief Justice's authorization violates judicial propriety. The Court noted that the High Court's Division Bench lacked jurisdiction under the roster but proceeded based solely on the parties' consent.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal heard the case concerning a Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment, which entertained an intra-court appeal against a Single Bench's order to de-list a writ petition. The hearing proceeded based on the parties' consent, despite lacking authorization from the Chief Justice.

Child Victim's Silence & Tears During Examination Alone Can't Benefit Rape Accused: Supreme Court Restores Conviction After 38 Years

Case Details: State of Rajasthan v. Chatra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 323

The Supreme Court criticised a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court for setting aside the conviction of a person for rape of a minor girl only on the ground that the child victim, during the cross-examination, remained silent and only shed tears.

The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the manner in which the High Court, through a 6-page order, set aside the well-considered judgment of the trial court merely on the ground of silence of the child victim during examination.

The High Court had overturned the conviction of the Respondent-accused, noting that the prosecutrix(victim girl) remained silent during the examination and therefore, the in absence of direct testimony from the prosecutrix about the incident, the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol overturned the High Court's judgment.

Plea To Regulate Private Hospitals' Medicine Charges: Supreme Court Leaves Issue For States' Policy Decision

Case Details: Siddharth Dalmia and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., WP(C) No. 337/ 2018

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 324

In a public interest litigation assailing private hospitals' compulsion of patients/attendants to purchase medicines/implants/medical devices only from pharmacies run or recommended by them, which allegedly charge rates higher than notified market rates, the Supreme Court directed all State Governments to consider the issue and take policy decisions as they deem fit.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh disposed of the matter, ordering, "We dispose of this petition with direction to all state governments to consider this issue and take appropriate policy decision as they deem fit".

The Court observed that the subjects of public health and sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries fall in List II (state list) and therefore relevant measures can be taken by state governments keeping their local conditions in view. "It may not be advisable for this Court to issue any mandatory directions which may hamper the [...] for hospitals in private sector but at the same time, it is necessary to sensitize state governments re: the alleged problem of unreasonable charges or exploitation of patients in private hospitals", the Court said.

The Court further questioned if it would be prudent for the Union/States to introduce a policy which regulates each and every activity in the private hospitals' space. Stipulating the issues arising for consideration, it was concluded that the policymakers are best equipped to take a holistic view of the matter "and frame guidelines as may be required to ensure that there is no exploitation of the patients and their attendants and at the same time, there is no discouragement and an unreasonable restriction for the private entities to enter the health sector".

Supreme Court Grants Bail In UAPA Case Noting That It Was Applied To Defeat SC Order Of Interim Protection, Condemns Chhattisgarh Police

Case Details: Manish Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 17921/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 325

The Supreme Court deprecated the conduct of Chhattisgarh police in applying the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against an accused soon after he was granted interim protection from arrest in another case.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed its strong displeasure with the police action.

"Obviously, to defeat the interim order of this court 2nd January 2025, the action has been taken by the police against appellant to ensure that he is taken into custody. The interim order dated 2.01.2025 of this court is completely nullified. We deprecate this conduct," the Court added.

"Under our order dated second 17th February, we had indicated that we will consider the prayer for grant of bail in FIR no. 39 of 2024 as well. Considering the fact that it is so apparent that arrest of the appellant in connection to the side offence only with the view to defeat the interim order of this court dated 2nd January 2025, the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in the said case as well," the Court ordered.

Supreme Court Criticises Anticipatory Bail Condition That Accused Should Be Arrested After Filing Of Chargesheet

Case Details: Ritesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 326

The Supreme Court disapproved of the Patna High Court's anticipatory bail order which imposed a condition that upon filing of the charge sheet, the trial court shall take coercive steps against the applicant, including an arrest.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra called the imposition of such a condition to be unwarranted and instead, said that the High Court could have left it open for the trial court to take a call on taking coercive steps after the submission of the charge-sheet.

Land Acquired By Govt Cannot Be Transferred Back By Beneficiary To Original Owner Through Private Agreement: Supreme Court

Case Details: Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, through its Chairman v. Bhagwan Devi (Dead), through her LR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 327

The Supreme Court ruled that land acquired by the government through its sovereign power of eminent domain for public purposes cannot be transferred back to the original owner by the beneficiary of the acquisition through private agreements.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard a case in which the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board ("Board") had agreed to transfer half of the total land acquired for establishing an agricultural market back to the landowner.

Describing it as a fraud on the State's power of eminent domain, the Court nullified the agreement by which the Board sought to transfer the acquired land back to the original owner. The Court held that once land is acquired by the government for a public purpose and its possession is vested with the beneficiary, it cannot be returned to the original owner through private agreements.

Magistrate Cannot Direct Police To Include Accused In Charge Sheet; Instead Issue Summons To Person Proposed To Be Added: Supreme Court

Case Details: Gopal Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 328

The Supreme Court observed that if a court intends to add a person as an accused, it cannot direct the police to include their name in the charge sheet. Instead, the court may ssue a summons to the proposed accused if sufficient grounds exist, even if they are not named in the charge sheet.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case where the Petitioner's name was included in the police's charge sheet on the direction of the Magistrate and was subsequently summoned as accused which was affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Magistrate Cannot Direct FIR Registration Under S.156(3) CrPC If Complainant Didn't Approach Police Before Under 154(1) & 154(3): Supreme Court

Case Details: Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 329

The Supreme Court has reiterated that before a complainant can seek a Magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to register an FIR and investigate a cognizable offence, they must first exhaust the remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC.

Under Section 154(1), a person must report the offence to the officer in charge of a police station, who is required to record it in writing, read it back to the informant, and obtain their signature.

If the police refuse to register the complaint, Section 154(3) allows the complainant to escalate the matter by submitting a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent may then investigate the case or assign a subordinate officer to do so.

Only after these steps are taken and the remedies under Section 154 are exhausted can the complainant approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) to seek an order for investigation.

IBC | Once Resolution Plan Approved, Dues Not Part Of It Get Extinguished: Supreme Court Rejects Post-Resolution Income Tax Demand

Case Details: Vaibhav Goel & Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 330

The Supreme Court (March 20) declined a claim raised by the Income Tax Department to include a tax demand in a Resolution Plan after it was approved by the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

Citing the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657, which held that all claims not included in the resolution plan are extinguished upon its approval, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed:

“in view of the declaration of law made by this Court (Ghanashyam Mishra's case), all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if not a part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings could be continued in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 of the IB Code. In this case, the income tax dues of the CD for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were not part of the approved Resolution Plan. Therefore, in view of sub-section (1) of Section 31, as interpreted by this Court in the above decision, the dues of the first respondent owed by the CD for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 stand extinguished.”

S.53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Raju Naidu v. Chenmouga Sundra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 331

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”), for a person possessing a property under part performance of a contract, is not available to a party who knowingly entered into the agreement despite being aware of pending litigation.

The Court approved the view of the High Court that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as the appellant had knowledge about the pendency of the suit when he had entered into an agreement with the father of the respondent Nos. 1 to 8.

The Court held that Section 53A TPA cannot be invoked by a transferee to obstruct or resist the claims of decree holders who have legally acquired rights over the suit property. It emphasized that a transferee who enters into a sale agreement during pending litigation, despite lacking a valid claim, cannot use this provision to override the decree holders' rights.

“the Courts have uniformly held that the limited rights of the transferee pendent lite on the principle of lis pendens. Such limited rights cannot be stretched to obstruct and resist the full claim of the decree holders to execute the decree in their favour. In fact, the Courts have deprecated such obstruction.”, the court observed.

Not 'Consumer' Without Privity Of Contract: Supreme Court Rejects Flat Seller's Consumer Complaint Against Financier Of Buyer

Case Details: M/S Citicorp Finance (India) Limited v. Snehasis Nanda

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 332

The Supreme Court (March 20) ruled that to qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, there must be a direct contractual relationship between the parties.

A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that a party having no privity of contract with the service provider cannot be regarded as a consumer as per the Act.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the arbitration clauses in an agreement would not override the consumer's choice to approach the consumer forum for adjudication of the dispute.

Prioritise Criminal Appeals Of Elderly Accused On Bail, Especially When Crime Is Old: Supreme Court To High Courts

Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 333

The Supreme Court advised the High Courts to give adequate priority to criminal appeals, where the accused are on bail. If the accused persons have remained on bail, especially in cases involving life sentences, and the appeal is ultimately dismissed after several years, then sending the accused back to prison might be difficult, particularly when they have attained old age.

The Court noted that generally, the High Courts prioritise appeals where the accused are in prison. However, there should be a balance struck so as to give adequate priority to the appeals where the accused are on bail, especially when the accused are aged and a long time has passed since the crime.

"The old age of the accused and the long lapse of time from the commission of the offence can always be a ground available to give some priority to the appeals against conviction of the accused on bail," the Court said.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice AG Masih made these observations while deciding an appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding a crime which occurred in 1989

Motor Accident Claim Can't Be Rejected Merely Because Vehicle's Make Was Wrongly Described: Supreme Court

Case Details: Parameshwar Subray Hegde v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 334

The Supreme Court observed that discrepancy in the make of the vehicle cannot be a ground to deny a rightful claim when the vehicle's registration number and other key details are consistent and correctly mentioned.

Because of the change of make of the vehicle, i.e., TATA Sumo in place of TATA Spacio, the claim as allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was rejected by the High Court upon setting aside the claim awarded by the Tribunal even though the vehicle's registration and other key details remained the same.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar observed:

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the registration number of the offending vehicle is KA-31/6059, was found involved in the criminal case which is one and the same, the finding of the High Court cannot be sustained. Even mere misdescription of the make of the vehicle could not have been treated as consistency or a ground to dismiss the claim petition itself, particularly when there is no change in the registration number of the offending vehicle. Therefore, impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside.”

Supreme Court Declines To Intervene In Challenge Against Haj Policy 2025 Implementation

Case Details: Kolkata Tours and Travels (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 335

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the implementation of the Union Government's Haj Policy, 2025 framed in consultation with Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

A batch of Writ Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the implementation of the Haj Policy, 2025 where the petitioners, who were Haj Group Organisers (“HGOs”), challenged the allocation of quotas of Haj pilgrims under the Haj-2025 Policy, alleging that the allocation was arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. They claimed that the allocation was inequitable, with some HGOs receiving disproportionately fewer pilgrims than others.

After the Petitioner's counsel informed the Court that quota redistribution among the three HGOs had been carried out for a more equitable allocation and that various HGOs were permitted to submit final MoUs per the Union's notice dated 18.03.2015—outlining CHGO (Combined HGOs) terms and internal quota distribution—by 20.03.2025 (today), the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh approved the arrangement. The Court also encouraged lead and non-lead HGOs to reallocate surplus pilgrims to those with fewer allocations.

Candidates Can't Be Rejected Solely Because They Had Higher Degrees Than Qualification Prescribed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 336

The Supreme Court observed that a candidate possessing a higher degree of qualification cannot be rejected solely because a lower degree of qualification is required for a particular post.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Appellants, who are post-graduates in Microbiology, Food Science, and Technology, and applied for the post of Food Safety Officer (“FSO”) were disqualified during the recruitment process on the grounds that their qualifications did not meet the criteria specified in the advertisement.

Setting aside the impugned ruling, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta stressed that the term "degree" in recruitment advertisements and statutory provisions should be interpreted to include Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees unless explicitly excluded.

1990 Kashmir University VC Murder Case | 'TADA Procedural Safeguards Violated': Supreme Court Dismisses CBI Appeals Against Acquittals

Case Details: State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 337

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the CBI challenging the acquittal of seven persons in the case for the abduction and murder of Kashmir University Vice Chancellor and his Personal Secretary in 1990 by the Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front

The Court affirmed the acquittal of the accused persons citing a lack of credible evidence and procedural lapses in recording confessions.

The Court held that the confessional statements were unreliable and failed to meet the procedural safeguards under the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, as the recording officer failed to ensure the voluntariness of the accused while taking confessions.

A bench of Justices Abay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “It is indeed a sad reflection as to how investigation and trial unfolded in this case, where truth and justice, both for the victims and the accused, remained elusive, and it is not for nothing that such draconian provisions have since been repealed.”

PMLA | Person Need Not Be Named As Accused In Complaint To Retain Seized Property Under Section 8(3): Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India v. J.P. Singh, Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 338

While dealing with a challenge to retention of an accused's electronic items, documents, etc. under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Supreme Court observed that a person need not be named as an accused in the complaint in order for Section 8(3)(a) (dealing with continuation of retention) to apply. Rather, it is sufficient if a complaint alleging commission of an offense under Section 3 of the Act is pending.

"clause (a) will apply during the continuation of the proceedings relating to an offence under the PMLA in a Court...For attracting clause (a), it is enough if a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is pending. It is not necessary for the applicability of clause (a) that the person affected by the order under Section 8(3) must be shown as an accused in the complaint. The complaint under Section 44 will always relate to the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The order of cognizance is of the offence and not of the accused or the offender", observed a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh.

Orders

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Delhi Home Secretary Over False Statement On Placing SRB Recommendations Before LG

Case Details: Mohd. Arif v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

The Supreme Court summoned the Home Department Secretary of the Delhi Government seeking an explanation and calling upon him to show cause why contempt action should not be initiated for the State Government's “completely false” claim that the recommendations of the Sentence Review Board(SRB) in a remission matter were placed before the Lieutenant Governor.

A bench or Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan took on record an affidavit filed by Prem Singh Meena, Superintendent Prison, PHQ-II, Prison Headquarters, Tihar which revealed that the Sentence Review Board, in its meeting held on 10th December, 2024, could not arrive at a decision.

“The affidavit does not say that the decision of the Sentence Review Board was placed before the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor. Therefore, the statement made by the State Government which is recorded in order dated 7th February, 2025 is completely false. Issue notice to the Secretary of the Home Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi calling upon him to show cause why appropriate action including the action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall not be initiated against him”, the Court observed.

Resolve Issue Of Rental Accommodation Of CRPF Personnel Posted In Delhi: Supreme Court Tells Union Govt

Case Details: Union of India & Ors. v. AC/M Jitendra Narayan Sinha & Ors. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2848/2020

The Supreme Court directed the Union to resolve the issue of rental accommodation for CRPF Personnel stationed temporarily in Delhi within a reasonable time. The Court specified that unless the same is not done, it would necessarily issue directions under Article 142 Jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a plea relating to the issue of providing rental accommodation to CRPF personnel in Delhi under the HRA paid to them.

The present case is the Union's challenge to the order of the Delhi High Court which had quashed the CRPF orders dated 17th February, 2005 and 28th April, 2017 making only those working in the HQs to be eligible for allotment of GPRA (General Pool Residential Accommodation). Here nine CRPF officers had moved the Court challenging the said orders by way of a writ petition.

The Supreme Court framed the issue as follows:

"Whether CRPF personnel who are posted here in Delhi for a limited duration of 2-3 years will be in position to get a reasonable accommodation on rental basis within the limits of HRA which is being paid to them."

Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Former Gujarat IAS Officer Pradeep Sharma In 2023 Illegal Land Allotment Case

Case Details: Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr | SLP(Crl) No. 6185/2023

The Supreme Court today(Monday) rejected bail to retired IAS officer Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma in connection to a 2023 illegal land allotment case lodged at Bhuj in Kutch.

Sharma is accused of corruption and criminal breach of trust for alleged illegal allotment of government land for monetary benefits as the then-collector of Kutch district. The FIR against him was lodged in 2023 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR registered with the CID Crime Boarder Zone Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 217, 120B, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed an order:

"We find no good reason to interfere with the order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed."

"Why Touchy About Comments On Court Proceedings?" Supreme Court On Delhi HC Order To Remove Wikipedia Page On ANI's Defamation Suit

Case Details: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited

The Supreme Court (March 17) issued notice on a petition filed by Wikimedia Foundation against an order passed by the Delhi High Court directing the removal of a Wikipedia page and discussions related to ongoing defamation proceedings initiated by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against Wikipedia.

During the hearing, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed concerns about the High Court's direction and the observation that the content amounted to interference with ongoing court proceedings.

"We are concerned with the legality and validity of the directions issued by the High Court in paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order," the bench observed while issuing notice to the ANI, returnable on April 4.

Supreme Court Seeks Report From Collector On Recovery Of Rs 1 Lakh Cost Imposed On Lawyer For Frivolous Petition

Case Details: Ashok Pandey v. Speaker of Lok Sabha and Ors | MA 479/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 1202/2023

The Supreme Court today(Monday) sought a report from the Collector as to why the cost imposed on Lucknow-based lawyer for filing a frivolous petition, challenging the restoration of Nationalist Congress Party Leader Mohammed Faizal's Lok Sabha membership, not been recovered as arrears of land revenue.

On October 20, 2023, the petitioner, Advocate Ashok Pandey, had filed a petition contending that once a Member of Parliament (MP) loses their office by due to conviction in a criminal case, they will continue to be disqualified until their acquittal by a higher court.

A bench of Justices B.R Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and Prashant Kumar Mishra had dismissed this public interest litigation (PIL) petition, observing that the petition was nothing but an "abuse of process of law" as none of the fundamental rights of the petitioner are violated, so as to enable him to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Manipur Violence| Supreme Court Extends Tenure Of Justice Gita Mittal Committee Till July 31

Case Details: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei and Ors. | Diary No. - 19206/2023

The Supreme Court (March 17) extended the tenure of Justice Gita Mittal Committee till July 31. The Committee is presently handling several humanitarian aspects of the ethnic violence in Manipur.

The Court also clarified that the sexual violence cases being handled by the CBI which were transferred to Assam for pre-trial steps would undergo trial in Guwahati Courts itself.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar and Joymalya Bagchi passed the following order:

"The Committee headed by Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court is extended till 31st July, 2025"

“Unless There Is A Threat Of Contempt, You Never Decide Remission Case”: Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Delhi Home Secretary

Case Details: Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi)

The Supreme Court has issued a contempt notice to the Principal Secretary of the Home Department, Delhi Government, for failing to take a decision on granting remission to Sukhdev Singh, a convict in the Nitish Katara murder case, despite giving an undertaking to the court.

The court, in its order, noted, “A solemn statement on instructions of the state government was recorded in the order. Now we are informed that the SRB is to consider the case of the petitioner today. The state government has not shown elementary courtesy of even making an explanation application for grant of extension of time. We therefore issue notice to the Principal Secretary of the Home Department of Delhi government calling upon him to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against him. Notice of contempt is made returnable on 28th of March. We direct the Secretary to remain present through VC.”

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed displeasure over the delay, pointing out that the Delhi Government regularly delays such matters.

Supreme Court Stays CBI Investigation Against Ex-Tamil Nadu Minister KT Rajenthra Bhalaji In Corruption Case

Case Details: K.T. Rajenthrabhalaji v. State | D No. 9403/2025

The Supreme Court today(Monday) passed an interim order restraining the Central Bureau of Investigation from conducting investigation into the allegations against former AIADMK Minister K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji in a cash-for-job scam case.

On January 6, the Madras High Court directed CBI's probe after it found that the Tamil Nadu Government had not complied with the Court's earlier order passed in November last year, directing the State police to file a chargesheet in this matter.

Before a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N Bhatti, two special leave petitions challenging the order was heard.

Supreme Court Grants 3 Months' Time To Union To Furnish Steps Taken For Delimitation In Northeastern States

Case Details: Delimitation Demand Committee for State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur & Nagaland in North East India v. Union of India | Diary No. 12880 of 2022

The Supreme Court (March 17) granted 3 months' time to the Union of India to furnish the steps taken to carry out the delimitation exercise in the North Eastern states, particularly Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, after a Presidential order of 2020 rescinded the deferment of their delimitation.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition seeking delimitation in four north-eastern states of India, namely, Manipur, Assam, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh.

RG Kar Case | Supreme Court Allows Victim's Parents To Pursue Plea In Calcutta HC For Probe Into Alleged Cover-Up

Case Details: In Re: Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College Hospital Kolkata and related issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2024

The Supreme Court (March 17) permitted the Calcutta High Court to proceed to hear a pending writ petition filed by the parents of the victim in the RG Kar Rape- Murder Incident seeking further investigation against ex-Principal of the College, Sandip Ghosh, in his involvement in the alleged cover-up of the crime.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the suo motu case pertaining to the brutal rape and murder of a doctor in RG Kar Hospital in Kolkata that occurred on August 9.

Supreme Court Stays Kerala HC Order Barring Temples Not Registered With District Committees From Parading Elephants

Case Details: Vishwa Gaja Seva Samithi v. Union of India and Ors. | Diary No. 10227-2025

The Supreme Court stayed the interim order of the Kerala High Court that temples and devaswoms which have not registered with the District Committees before the cut-off date of 31.05.2022 cannot be permitted to parade elephants at festivals.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the stay order while issuing notice on a petition filed by an organisation 'Vishwa Gaja Seva Samithi' challenging the High Court's order passed on January 13.

Civil Judges' Recruitment: Gujarat & Karnataka HCs Suspend Selection Process To Await Supreme Court Judgment On Minimum Practice Condition

Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

In the All India Judges Association case, the Supreme Court was informed on behalf of Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts that the recruitment process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been kept in abeyance given the fact that the Supreme Court has reserved judgment on whether a condition of minimum practice as a lawyer must be prescribed to apply for the post.

The matter was before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih, which disposed of the listed interlocutory application in view of a statement made by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj that since the Court's judgment is reserved, relevant notifications have been issued and the recruitment process will not proceed.

New CEC Open To Address Concerns On Voter Turnout Data, Says Election Commission; Supreme Court Asks Petitioners To Submit Representations

Case Details: Mahua Moitra v. Election Commission of India W.P.(C) No. 1389/2019

The new Chief Election Commissioner is ready to listen to the concerns raised over the publication of voter turnout data and Form 17C(which records the number of votes polled in a booth), the Election Commission of India informed the Supreme Court today.

The ECI told the Court that the petitioners may submit their representations, raising their concerns and giving their suggestions. Recording this submission, the Court asked the petitioners to give their representations to the ECI within 10 days.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of pleas seeking the uploading of Form 17C data on the ECI website and the publication of booth-wise voter turnout data.

While the court assured the petitioners that the matter would be listed further for hearing, it advised the petitioners to presently raise their concerns which the new CEC.

Refund Of School Fees Charged During COVID: Supreme Court Forms Committee To Assess Financial Status Of Private Schools In UP

Case Details: Independent School Federation of India v. Adarsh Bhushan | SLP(C) No. 011388 - / 2023

The Supreme Court (March 18) constituted a two-member committee led by Justice(Retired) GP Mittal to examine the financial status of private schools which challenged the Allahabad High Court's direction to adjust/refund 15% of excess fees charged during the pandemic period.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing the challenge to the Allahabad High Court order which directed private schools to either adjust or reimburse 15% of fees paid by parents for the Covid-struck period of 2020-2021. The present challenge has been made by a batch of around 17 private schools.

Supreme Court Flags 'Horrendous' Translations, Says AoRs Must Act Responsibly; Conveys Concerns To SCAORA President

Case Details: Chairman Managing Committee & Anr. v. Bhaveshkumar Manubhai Parakhia & Ors.

While hearing a matter pertaining to the employment of a teacher, the Supreme Court orally took a strong critical stand against the incorrect and mistranslated documents filed before it. It also called for the presence of Vipin Nair, President of the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) in the Court and questioned who should be responsible for the incorrect translations because Advocates on Record (AOR) are supposed to certify the documents submitted in the Court.

No Blanket Nod To Establishment Or Expansion Of MSMEs In Taj Trapezium Zone Without Pollution Check: Supreme Court

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court refused to grant blanket permission for the establishment or expansion of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) without assessing their potential for pollution.

The Court observed in its order, “Unless TTZ Authority makes out a case for granting approval to a particular industry, such blanket prayer cannot be considered. Unless the Court is made aware whether the industry sought to be created is likely to create pollution, we cannot grant blanket permission.”

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that such permissions cannot be granted without specific information about the industries involved.

Supreme Court Asks Greater Noida Authority To Cooperate With Cheated Homebuyers In Reviving Dead Housing Project

Case Details: Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9792/2017

The Supreme Court today(Tuesday) directed the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to cooperate with homebuyers in reviving a housing project which was abandoned by the builder.

The Court asked the Authority to provide the details of the demand which the Authority would have raised in case the original builders had completed the project so thatthe proportional charges of each of the home buyers can be decided depending upon the size of the apartments they are taking.

The project got abandoned after the Cooperative Housing Society, which took the plot on lease from the Authority, failed to pay the lease dues despite taking money from home buyers.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the Court is not happy that the Authority is not cooperating to revive the dead project.

Uttarakhand Govt Explains 'Misutilization' Of CAMPA Funds; Supreme Court Closes Issue Finding Deviations To Be 'Trivial'

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995

Pursuant to Supreme Court's rap regarding misutilization of CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority) funds, the Uttarakhand government explained that majority of the subject expenses were directly or indirectly related to purposes permissible under the relevant Rules.

In the few instances where irregularities were found, the state government conveyed that departmental proceedings were initiated prior to the Supreme Court taking note of the issue and appropriate action is contemplated.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and decided to not go further into the issue, after hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for Uttarakhand government), who answered the challenge to Uttarakhand's utilization of CAMPA funds.

'Need Clear Answers, To Whom Contracts Were Awarded': Supreme Court To Arunachal Pradesh Govt & Union On Allegations Against Arunachal CM

Case Details: Save Mon Region Federation and Anr v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 54/2024 PIL-W

While hearing a plea for SIT probe into alleged irregular tender allotments in Arunachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court on March 18 sought detailed responses from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Finance Ministry and the state government on the parties that awarded public work tenders within the state.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a PIL seeking directions for SIT probe into the alleged irregular allotment of public contracts to the companies owned by relatives of the incumbent Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Mr Pema Khandu.

Supreme Court Seeks Report From NEERI On Laying Down Of Paver Blocks In Matheran; Assures That It Won't Allow 'Motorization' Of The Hill Town

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995

While dealing with the issue of laying down of paver blocks in Matheran, Maharashtra, the Supreme Court called for a report from the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) on aspects including the necessity of installing paver blocks, the preferred nature of paver blocks (clay/concrete), etc.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, being of the view that NEERI is the most prestigious body in the field of environmental sciences. It further directed State of Maharashtra to make necessary arrangements for inspection by NEERI experts and to provide necessary assistance to enable them to submit a report.

Supreme Court Asks Odisha Govt To Decide Premature Release Plea Of Convict In Graham Staines Murder Case Within 6 Weeks

Case Details: Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. State of Odisha | Diary No. 11407-2024

The Supreme Court (March 19) asked the State of Odisha to take a decision on the plea for premature release of Dara Singh who is serving life sentence for the murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons in 1999.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a writ petition filed by Singh seeking remission of his sentence. He stated that he has served more than 24 years in imprisonment.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection From Eviction To Over 19000 Maharashtra Street Vendors

Case Details: Maharashtra Pheriwala Kranti Mahasangh v. Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors., SLP(C) No. 5144/2023

The Supreme Court granted interim protection from eviction to 19000 odd street vendors in Pimpri-Chinchwad near Pune in Maharashtra.

The Court said that until the exercise of identifying/notifying the hawking and non-hawking zones is contemplated in accordance with the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, status quo be maintained and the hawkers not be evicted from their place of vending.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, stating,

"The exercise to accommodate the 19792 street-vendors or 14000 and odd street-vendors, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, is continuing. Until the exercise is completed, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to possession and functioning of the street-vendors."

'BCI Has No Business Interfering With Legal Education': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against HC Allowing 2 Convicts To Attend Law School Virtually

Case Details: Bar Council of India v. State of Kerala and Ors., Diary No. 11532/2025

While dismissing Bar Council of India's challenge to a Kerala High Court order which allowed 2 murder convicts to attend law classes virtually, the Supreme Court orally observed that BCI has no business interfering with matters of legal education and should leave the same to jurists and legal academicians.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and dismissed the petition, leaving however the question of law open.

13 Bangladeshi Nationals Deported; Verification Ongoing For Others: Assam Govt Informs Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr.

The Supreme Court was informed (March 21) that 13 out of 63 Bangladeshi nationals detained in Assam's Matia transit camp have been deported.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recorded this statement from Assam's affidavit in a case concerning the detention and deportation of foreigners in Assam.

“It is pointed out that on the basis of document at Annexure 'B' that out of the list which is referred in our order dated 4th February, 2025, 13 Bangladeshi Nationals have been deported to Bangladesh”, the Court recorded in its order.

Other Developments

'We've To Trust Our Institutions': Supreme Court On Plea Seeking Independent Method To Appoint CAG; Issues Notice To Centre

Case Details: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 194/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on a petition seeking an independent and neutral method to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).

The PIL filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) sought a direction that the CAG appointment be made by an independent committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. The petitioner argued that the present system of the Union Government solely selecting the CAG hampered their independence.

Can Lokpal Entertain Complaint Against HC Judge? Supreme Court To Hear On April 15

Case Details: In Re: Order Dated 27/01/2025 Passed By Lokpal of India and Ancilliary Issues, SMW(C) No. 2/2025

The Supreme Court adjourned till April 15 the hearing of the suo motu case initiated against a Lokpal decision to entertain a complaint against a High Court Judge.

A special bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Abhay S Oka appointed Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist the Court from the point of view of the complainant, who filed the complaint against the Judge before the Lokpal.

UPSC Cheating Case: Complete Investigation Against Ex-IAS Officer Puja Khedkar Steadfastly, Supreme Court Tells Delhi Police

Case Details: Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 357/2025

While extending the interim protection granted to ex-IAS probationary officer Puja Khedkar, who is accused of submitting fake OBC & PwD certificates in the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination, the Court orally asked why the Delhi police was not completing the investigation when Khedkar herself has said it on affidavit that she was willing to cooperate.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by Khedkar. In January, the Court had granted her interim protection from arrest.

The Court will hear the matter on April 15.

West Bengal OBC Classification Issue: State Commission Conducting Fresh Exercise To Identify Backward Classes; Supreme Court Posts Matter To July

Case Details: State of West Bengal and Anr. v. Amal Chandra Das, SLP(C) No. 17751-17755/2024

In the matter involving a challenge to the quashing of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) classification of 77 communities in West Bengal, the state government told the Supreme Court that the exercise for identification of OBCs in the state will be conducted afresh and completed in about 3 months.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was dealing with the petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the decision of the Calcutta High Court to quash the OBC classification of 77 communities (mostly Muslim).

Rights Of Persons With Disabilities: Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Strict Implementation Of RPwD Act In Prisons

Case Details: Sathyan Naravoor v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 182/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking strict implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in prisons across the country.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order. The matter is next listed for consideration on 8 April 2025.

Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Challenging Election Commissioners' Law On April 16

Case Details: Dr Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024

The Supreme Court (March 19) scheduled the hearing of pleas challenging the constitutionality of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023, for April 16.

The petitions, listed before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh, contest the removal of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the selection panel responsible for appointing Election Commissioners (ECs). As per the law, ECs are to be selected by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, a Cabinet Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

'Some States Boast Of High Per Capita Income, Yet Say Majority In Poverty': Supreme Court Asks If Scientific Criteria Is Followed For BPL

Case Details: In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers | MA 94/2022 in SMW(C) No. 6/2020

The Supreme Court (March 19) orally commented that there are certain States which, despite boasting of having high per capita income, also claim benefits meant for the Below Poverty Line (BPL) section by claiming that the majority of their population is poor.

The Court wondered if there was a scientific method followed by the States to identify and classify the poor sections and shared its concerns about BPL benefits going to persons who are not deserving.

The Court was hearing the matter pertaining to the free ration cards to migrant workers and unskilled labourers found eligible under the e-Shram portal.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh was hearing this case, which has taken suo motu by the Court during the COVID pandemic to address the concerns of migrant workers and unskilled labourers.

Senior Designations | Supreme Court Questions Inclusion Of Attorney General, Advocate Generals & Bar Members In Permanent Committee

Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Supreme Court (March 19) questioned the inclusion of members of the bar such as Attorney General for India and Advocates Generals in the Permanent Committee of the Court that assigns marks to candidates for senior advocate designations.

“If something is to be done by the Full Court, can anybody else be part of the Full Court decision-making process? There are two different things. One is, if the High Court takes informal opinion of the Attorney General or the Advocate General. But can there be a machinery where two members of the bar are part of the machinery which evaluates the lawyers? That is a different thing. Suppose somebody can challenge that what business lawyers have to participate in the functioning of the High Court. Now the views of the High Court are influenced by the Attorney General or Advocate General etc.” Justice Oka questioned.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice SVN Bhatti heard arguments on the issue of reconsideration of the Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023, which lay down guidelines for the conferment of senior advocate designations.

Supreme Court Expresses Inclination To Transfer Gold Smuggling Case Trial From Kerala To Karnataka

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Sarith P.S. and Ors | T.P.(Crl.) No. 449/2022

The Supreme Court orally expressed a prima facie inclination to transfer the trial of the money laundering case related to the 2020 gold smuggling case from Kerala to Karnataka.

The Court orally observed that since the prima facie allegations are "serious", the plea of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to transfer the trial should not be opposed.

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing the transfer petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2022 seeking to transfer the trial of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case, at present before the Special PMLA Court at Ernakulam, to a Special Court for PMLA cases in Karnataka.

'Police Being Biased': Supreme Court Rebukes UP Police For Wrong Application Of Conversion Law

Case Details: X v. State of Uttar Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 003154 - / 2025

The Supreme Court rebuked the Uttar Pradesh Police for arbitrarily handling an alleged case of rape where the offences under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 have been invoked.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a bail plea filed by the petitioner who is accused in a case of alleged rape and unlawful conversion.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Reconsidering Senior Designation Criteria, Indira Jaising Suggests Reducing Interview Marks

Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the issue of reconsideration of the Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023, which lay down guidelines for the conferment of senior advocate designations.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti heard submissions from Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, the petitioner in the petitions in which the two judgments were passed. She proposed that the Court could set cutoff marks by analysing the average marks obtained by candidates.

Acid Attack Victims Can Approach State Legal Services Authorities If Compensation Is Delayed Or Defaulted: Supreme Court

Case Details: Acid Survivors Saahas Foundation (NGO) v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 1252/2023

While hearing a PIL seeking efficient compensation for victims of acid attack, the Supreme Court (March 20) granted liberty to the affected survivors to approach the State Legal Services Authorities(SLSA) in case of any default or delay in receiving the compensatory amount.

The Court also granted additional time to the Union and several states to file their responses. SLSAs were further directed to submit a chart containing details of the compensation applications filed by the victims.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a PIL by an NGO for Acid Survivors, Saahas, seeking stringent implementation of the guidelines in the landmark case of Laxmi v. Union of India and adequate compensatory and rehabilitation measures for the victims so far.

Supreme Court To Hear On 8 May Pleas Relating To Deportation & Living Conditions Of Rohingya Refugees

Case Details: Jaffar Ullah and Anr. v. U.O.I and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 859/2013

The Supreme Court listed for hearing on 8 May a batch of petitions/public interest litigations pertaining to deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order.

Challenge To Delhi HC's Senior Designations | Can Deferred Candidates Be Considered Again By Full Court? Supreme Court Asks HC

Case Details: Raman Alias Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi

The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi High Court whether the controversy concerning recent senior advocate designations could be resolved by the Full Court by considering the cases of candidates whose designation was deferred.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan posed this query during the hearing of a petition challenging the Delhi High Court's designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates.

CJI Constitutes 3-Member Committee For Inquiry Against Justice Yashwant Varma Over Cash-At-Home Row

The Chief Justice of India has constituted a 3-member committee to conduct an inquiry into the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge of the Delhi High Court, as part of the in-house procedure.

The members of the Committee are - Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh; and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka.

Supreme Court Publishes Video & Pictures On Cash At Justice Yashwant Varma's Premises; Makes Report Of Delhi HC CJ Public

The Supreme Court on its website the reports and documents, including photos and video, with respect to the allegations of the discovery of unaccounted currencies at the outhouse in the residential premises of Justice Yashwant Varma, sitting judge of the Delhi High Court.

The inquiry report of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice and the response of Justice Varma have been made public.